Oppenheimer, the Movie - A missed opportunity

Anticipated a thrilling, thought-provoking ride 

I went into the movie hall to watch Oppenheimer with lot of excitement and anticipation.
I am a diehard Christopher Nolan fan and I expected a thrilling ride full of philosophical and psychological debate. But, alas that is not the result. But, Oppenheimer is a documentary. It is a good biopic which narrates the complexities and politics associated with the father of A-bomb. But it does not do justice  life of the father. It is a missed opportunity to present the conflict in Dr. Oppenheimer's mind. The Philosophical debate of  the Good, the Evil and the Greater Good.

Now I am death

Dr. Oppenheimer's was the first to realise that the energy that drives the universe can be harnessed. His research resulted in the creation of the first nuclear bombs. He immediately understood the gravity of what he had helped create, and has often said that the first words that ran through his mind after the bomb was successfully tested in the New Mexico desert in 1945 were from the Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

In an interview, Oppenheimer recalled the emotions that were felt in the control room on the day of the test. "We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. 

I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' 

The actual quotes from Gita

Gita Chapter 11 Verse 12 

If the splendour of a thousand Suns was to blaze all at once (simultaneously) in the sky, that would be like the splendour of that Mighty Being (Brahma)

Gita Chapter 11 Verse 32

I am Kaal (Time, Entropy, Destroyer) and when required I can engage in destroying the worlds. Even without You (Arjun), none of the warriors arrayed in the hostile armies shall live.

The context

But if read out of context this will be misleading. What is meant here is: I (The supreme power) am the creator of all things and when required will also become the destroyer of evil...

Expected more from Nolan

Christopher Nolan is known to mix philosophy with the narrative and that makes his movies thought-provoking and compelling watch. The risk and reward for any action. The drive, the desire to achieve success. Towards the greater good or simply to gain recognition.

His movies intricately weave big questions into the story such as:

• The complexity of memory (Memento) 
• The birth of an "Idea" (Inception)
• Batman's Fear and Quest for redemption (The Dark Knight)
• Even a person NOT driven by Greed can be dangerous (The Joker) 
• The creation of the universe & space-time (Interstellar)
  
• The passage of time as experienced by different individuals (Dunkirk)

I was expecting an in depth presentation of the eternal conflict of "Good vs Evil" in Oppenheimer... but alas Nolan just scratches the surface.

Arjun's Conflict

Arjun was conflicted before the war started at Kurukshetra. He debated whether he should follow the instructions given to him as his Duty OR he should abstain on Moral grounds. 

Dr. Oppenheimer also had this dilemma. It was his duty as a citizen, as an expert to strengthen the war machinery of the United States. But as a scientist he also felt a responsibility towards utilisation of  the technology for development and well-being of human race.

How does he deal with this conflict? Did he choose the convenient explanation that the bomb will act as a deterrent. It will end all wars for good. This aspect is under-developed in the movie. I understand that Oppenheimer had studied Bhagwat Gita in Sanskrit and he identified with the conflict of Arjun. 

He realised the force that drives the universe can be harnessed. He used it to create a weapon.But did he have options? 

• Was he responsible for the misery in Japan? 
• Did he really feel "There was blood on his hands"? 
• Did he contribute to directing the research towards more constructive applications
• Or he tried to control further development through the worldwide Atomic Development Agency?

We leave the movie hall with a sense of tragedy, but no insight into alternatives.

... and that is an opportunity lost.